Obama to destroy multi-trillion dollar industry?

Tony the Tiger, some NASCAR drivers and cookie-selling Girl Scouts will be out of a job unless grocery manufacturers agree to reinvent a vast array of their products to satisfy the Obama administration’s food police.

Either retool the recipes to contain certain levels of sugar, sodium and fats, or no more advertising and marketing to tots and teenagers, say several federal regulatory agencies.

The same goes for restaurants.

It’s not just the usual suspected foods that are being targeted, such a thin mint cookies sold by scouts or M&Ms and Snickers, which sponsor cars in the Sprint Cup, but pretty much everything on a restaurant menu.

Although the intent of the guidelines is to combat childhood obesity, foods that are low in calories, fat, and some considered healthy foods, are also targets, including hot breakfast cereals such as oatmeal, pretzels, popcorn, nuts, yogurt, wheat bread, bagels, diet drinks, fruit juice, tea, bottled water, milk and sherbet.

Food industries are in an uproar over the proposal written by the Federal Trade Commission, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“The most disturbing aspect of this interagency working group is, after it imposes multibillions of dollars in restrictions on the food industry, there is no evidence of any impact on the scourge of childhood obesity,” said Dan Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers.

The “Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children, Preliminary Proposed Nutrition Principles to Guide Industry Self-Regulation Efforts” says it is voluntary, but industry officials say the intent is clear: Do it, or else.

“When regulators strongly suggest a course of action, it’s treated as a rule, not a suggestion,” said Scott Faber, vice president of federal affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers Association. “Industry tends to heed these suggestions from our regulators, and this administration has made it clear they are willing to regulate if we don’t implement their proposal.”

It’s not just the food industry that will be impacted. Hundreds of television shows that depend on the advertising revenue, such as the Nickelodeon Channel, ESPN, and programs including "American Idol" will be affected, critics of the proposal say—at a cost of $5.8 trillion in marketing expenditures that support up to 20 million American jobs.

If the food is not reformulated, no more ads or promotions on TV, radio, in print, on websites, as well as other digital advertising such as e-mail and text messaging, packaging, and point-of-purchase displays and other in-store marketing tools; product placement in movies, videos, video games, contests, sweepstakes, character licensing and toy branding; sponsorship of events including sport teams and individual athletes; and, philanthropic activity tied to branding opportunities.

That includes softball teams that are sponsored by food companies and school reading programs sponsored by restaurants.

“The Interagency working group recommends that the food industry, through voluntary self-regulatory efforts, make significant improvements in the nutritional quality of foods marketed to children and adolescents ages 2 to 17 years,” the proposal says.

“By the year 2016, all food products within the categories most heavily marketed directly to children should meet two basic nutrition principles. Such foods should be formulated to … make a meaningful contribution to a healthful diet and minimize the content of nutrients that could have a negative impact on health and weight.”

Beth Johnson, a dietician for Food Directions in Maryland, said many of the foods targeted in this proposal are the same foods approved by the federal government for the WIC nutrition program for women, infants and children.

“This doesn’t make any sense whatsoever,” Johnson said. “It’s not going to do anything to help with obesity. These are decisions I want to make for my kids. These should not be government decisions.”

This is a huge dilemma. It is obvious that many people on this planet need protecting from themselves, or they need protecting from others. Who decides who the protector is? Should there even be a protector? If someone cannot make the right decisions(in this case eat right and exercise), should we let that person waste away? What does that say for our compassion for our fellow man? If it was a family member spiraling out of control, would you not say something to help/protect them? Why should we treat those we don't know any differently? Does the fact we treat others differently indicate we only show compassion to those we love, and let the rest rot? If someone decides to care, and try to help/protect this person, even though they don't know this person, should they be treated like an asshole for trying to interfere?

We've already drawn a line on free will/choice. Laws, regulations, etc. Everyone doesn't agree with every law. With each passing law, more rights are given up. It all circles back to... Who decides who makes the decisions, and should they even be making decisions?

None of this has anything to do with Obama in the OP, but just my general thoughts on situations like these.

If you had the ability to help stop others getting fat, or being lazy, through any means(from a cattle prod to supernatural powers), would you help them? Should you help them?

First not everyone is the same biologically. Genetics at every level affect how we deal with food. There were fatties in the Renaissance and none of this 'horrible food' existed. The eventual mandate that I must consume 'x' may actually turn out to be detrimental to my health and Twinkies may actually be keeping me alive!

Second, not everyone is the same physiologically. I have self control. I am not going to tear into a package of Twinkies and create a box-wide extinction. Should I and the other 99% of the Twinkie eating population be deprived because 1% cannot help themselves? There are programs... many, many programs out there to help people with self-control issues.

Quote by Flee:

None of this has anything to do with Obama in the OP, but just my general thoughts on situations like these.

Well yeah, it does.... it's his administration pushing these policies. But it goes much further than just him and has been along for much longer than he has.

Quote by Flee:

If you had the ability to help stop others getting fat, or being lazy, through any means(from a cattle prod to supernatural powers), would you help them? Should you help them?

I had a lactose intolerant person living with us. For some reason she kept eating ice cream and drinking milk. I would ask her why she was doing it. She knew what would happen and still did it but I was not going to physically take it away from her. She was an adult and it was up to her to deal with the repercussions.

If people like this got their way we would all be on the same (Twinkie-free ) diet that they approve. Guess what? I ate Twinkies and Doritos, and marshmallows and McDonald's and Big-League Chew and I am not fat. My kids eat all that stuff too... and they are not fat.

We've already drawn a line on free will/choice. Laws, regulations, etc. Everyone doesn't agree with every law. With each passing law, more rights are given up. It all circles back to... Who decides who makes the decisions, and should they even be making decisions?

I draw the line at the point where if what I do doesn't harm or endanger anyone else I should not be stopped from doing it.

Thats why i added the word exercise in there If you are active, you can essentially eat what you want and not be fat. Apart from genetic/medical reasons.

Quote by Quaektem:

Well yeah, it does.... it's his administration pushing these policies. But it goes much further than just him and has been along for much longer than he has.

I meant I wasn't trying to imply Obama was showing compassion, etc, by doing this.

Quote by Quaektem:

many, many programs out there to help people with self-control issues.

Thats my point. If someone lacks the ability to control themselves, should someone step in to act as the control? When speaking about food it is no big deal, but what about drugs abusers? People that harm themselves physically? Should we just stand by and let them? To seek out a program one would require self control.

If someone is prone to depression and attempts to kill themselves, they could be thrown into a hospital and be controlled/protected as they would be deemed insane. I am sure there are tons of people in hospitals against their will for that very reason. Should we release them all, knowing the likely result?

In all of time, 1 bad apple has spoiled the bunch. When everyone gets punished due to 1 bad apple, what do you think the point of punishing everyone is?

Say you have 3 children and they are unsupervised for a period of time and they did something that you do not approve of, but did not harm anyone. You ask them who did it. None come forward. Do you punish them all?

Same 3 kids. The youngest 2 are being watched by the eldest(all over 18 years old). The younger 2 again do something you don't approve of, caused no harm, but lands them in jail. The eldest did nothing to stop it. Are you disappointed in the eldest for not stopping the other 2? If you were present at the time of the incident, would you try to stop them?

I think that even if you didn't stop them, you would be restraining yourself from doing so.

Just to be clear, I don't have a stance on this subject as I am torn between both sides. I would love to protect everyone and ensure they have good lives, but I also would not want to interfere with free will.

Well yeah, it does.... it's his administration pushing these policies. But it goes much further than just him and has been along for much longer than he has.

I know it is not your thread, but your response raises the question...

Then why has he been singled out?

Because he's the current major proponent, and in a position of power to force feed us this crap, when they were just some freaks on the side no one really cred, not it's more than important to stop this nonsense

I know that this will meet with venom, but I could make a case that religious standards are exactly what this article is speaking to. The idea of forbidding premarital & extramarital sex would eliminate STD's and AIDS almost in their entirety. The removal of alcohol, which btw is poisonous to the human body, would remove alcoholism, DWIs and obviously alcohol related crimes (domestic violence where alcohol is involved, altercations like what my nephew is in trouble with the law over etc) But those "imposed guidelines" are met with vitriol and indignation. Why is the govt not met with the same when that is the reaction? Obviously if someone is angry with "the church" for imposing these guidelines and also with the govt they are at least being consistent. But to those who buck that "church" but not the state, I wonder what makes the "state" palatable

The government doesn't need to regulate what we eat. If America wants to get fat, shit let them do it. That's their heart and body they're killing. Stay the fuck out of our food! And these 'healthy' alternates are usually disgusting and less healthy than the original stuff.

The government doesn't need to regulate what we eat. If America wants to get fat, shit let them do it. That's their heart and body they're killing. Stay the fuck out of our food! And these 'healthy' alternates are usually disgusting and less healthy than the original stuff.

The Government should not regulate what we eat - but they should to make sure that standards are met including those on what is claimed to be healthy and or natural.

Quote by Quaektem:

Really? Back in the thirties people knew cigarettes were bad for you.

Ignorance of the risks today requires some hard-core willingness.

I am sorry if it sounds cold-hearted but if you choose to live your life so actively blind to the risks, or blatantly ignore them, you deserve everything you bring upon yourself.

In the 30's I believe it was BLASTED in news, magazines and movies that smoking was the in thing. They used athletes and medical professionals to endorse a more healthy image.

Ignorance of risks indeed to take some hard-core willingness - usually found among teens and..the ignorant which we have no shortage of.

Just to be clear, I don't have a stance on this subject as I am torn between both sides. I would love to protect everyone and ensure they have good lives, but I also would not want to interfere with free will.

I understand that. It's why I work on a personal level to help others... they can tell me to fuck off, they can't do that to the Government.

The problem is when the government tries to fix school food they end up just serving the same stuff with less taste. All they really did was take the pizza away and got rid of the soda machines. Nothing else really changed. That's not eating more healthy and if the food sucks kids either won't eat or bring food from home.

The Government should not regulate what we eat - but they should to make sure that standards are met including those on what is claimed to be healthy and or natural.

Fraud should be prosecuted... and if you claim your food is healthy +/or natural and it isn't you should be going to jail or your company fined.

Quote by TapedToMyChair:

The problem is when the government tries to fix school food they end up just serving the same stuff with less taste. All they really did was take the pizza away and got rid of the soda machines. Nothing else really changed. That's not eating more healthy and if the food sucks kids either won't eat or bring food from home.

Not sure if it was the times or the school...
But our cafeteria food was actually very good and as balanced and nutritious as possible. Maybe the staff cared more...
We never had soda machines, so they did not have to be removed.